ACC expansion | Page 8 | The Boneyard

ACC expansion

Ha Who said:
Could you explain the difference between what the SMU boosters are offering versus the current deficit that is being run by us?
Expand ...

That's specifics beyond what I know. I just know SMU is what is making this possible, so there is no way SMU is replaced by UConn or anyone else.
 
TheCatsLair said:
And truthfully being on the third best and highest paid conference is a great place to be.
Expand ...
My concern with being in The Big 12 would be if the schools who bring the value decide that they could possibly get something better starting something altogether new with a number of leftover ACC Schools. Not saying that will happen, but it certainly could happen. When you consider the amount of upheaval that league has seen, is anybody in it really going to have allegiance to anyone else?
 
Rufus said:
That's specifics beyond what I know. I just know SMU is what is making this possible, so there is no way SMU is replaced by UConn or anyone else.
Expand ...
SMU is sitting on a pile of cash. There was speculation that SMU would cover the comcast bill for Pac in exchange for invite.

It’s not really different except that UConn is funded by taxpayers. SMU is getting cash from boosters.
 
Hoophound said:
This. We do more with less than any other school and it isn’t even close.
Expand ...
LOL We have typically haves done less with more.
We spend at a P5 rate . But the taxpayers underwrite it not s media company . We had the biggest budget in the entire G5 .

FfldCntyFan said:
The only reason movingq to the ACC would make sense for us would be for the additional media revenue. If we join at such a discount where the increase would be negligible, it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

SMU has an advantage in that they have donors who would be both willing and able to underwrite the lack of revenues, we aren't in that position.

I also still have a strong desire to get to where we are above all ACC schools as an athletic program and tell them to kiss our backside if they finally come around as extend an invitation.
Expand ...
Do you you seriously think the $6,000,000 a year SMU gets from the AAC underwrites their Athletic Budget.?
I would forgo any media money to join a P4 conference from a G5
Because you could possibly minimal replace the AAC money or even greatly exceed it.

If you got a share of the ACC football playoff money which will be a pool of $125, 000,000 per P4 conference and have inclusion to
their Bowl tie ins that.huge jump in potential income
and can easily exceed xour current conference contribution.
Even without those perks the better exposure , increased attendance and ticket prices alone could offset the media money loss . I do agree booster money
should also increase . A conclusion that SMU isn’t really a big investment simple because worlds are that far apart .,
They do have a small stadium for P conference 32,000 but a with a bigger attraction multiple larger sites in the Dallas area are available .
UConn is a little different situation
But I would have jumped at a a 0 media money for football guarantee of 3-4 BB men’s and. women’s games games annually .
The ACC may not want us but if it even looked like the B12 was going to grab us they would have done it .
Even the ACC isn’t that stupid .
 
Last edited:
We spend at the very low end of P5 rate and it's not on football. Geno makes as much as the entire football coaching staff. We don't spend high on G5 rate. SMU spends 22MM+ on football, that's 6MM more than us. UCF, USF spend millions higher. The deficit is largely accumulated by sports not football and basketball.
 
Duncan Idaho said:
We spend at the very low end of P5 rate and it's not on football. Geno makes as much as the entire football coaching staff. We don't spend high on G5 rate. SMU spends 22MM+ on football, that's 6MM more than us. UCF, USF spend millions higher. The deficit is largely accumulated by sports not football and basketball.
Expand ...
This is why people that say we are not serious about football, do have a leg to stand on.
 
.-.
Anything can happen now that we have Frankenstein conferences.

Stitched together from disparate parts from all over the country, Now, it doesn't have to make geographic sense, rivalry sense, fan sense...

Should make any team a "fit" for any conference if the money speaks.
 
noeynox said:
This is why people that say we are not serious about football, do have a leg to stand on.
Expand ...

We spent 70MM on a beautiful hockey facility with great amenities for the players that only seats 2.5k. Spent a lot of money on the exterior but limited the seating for students and the public for a cocktail lounge and some monstrosity student SRO thing,
 
Duncan Idaho said:
We spent 70MM on a beautiful hockey facility with great amenities for the players that only seats 2.5k. Spent a lot of money on the exterior but limited the seating for students and the public for a cocktail lounge and some monstrosity student SRO thing,
Expand ...

Hockey east is/was an irredeemable money pit that we never should have entertained from day 1.
 
Duncan Idaho said:
We spent 70MM on a beautiful hockey facility with great amenities for the players that only seats 2.5k. Spent a lot of money on the exterior but limited the seating for students and the public for a cocktail lounge and some monstrosity student SRO thing,
Expand ...
Agree about the ice level bar and the stupid student deck. In a year or so I would expect the student deck to come out as part of an expanded seating program. It looks temporary. I'm not so sure that the exterior is all that pricey. For the most part it's pretty generic materials, including what appears to be vinyl siding on the left-hand side of the building 3/4 of the way.

Most of the money I think went to internal with amenities, which, when you think about it it's probably more important than seating capacity in the near term. It's unfortunate that Connecticut law makes building public buildings pricier than private buildings, but it is what it is.
 
CL82 said:
How so?
Expand ...

The annual operating expenses and the infrastructure required to field a niche sport that has low visibility even regionally, let alone nationally, and will operate in the red forever seemed irresponsible and a luxury item for a school that was in the AAC for other sports at the time. Even more so today as were still in the G5 abyss.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
Agree about the ice level bar and the stupid student deck. In a year or so I would expect the student deck to come out as part of an expanded seating program. It looks temporary. I'm not so sure that the exterior is all that pricey. For the most part it's pretty generic materials, including what appears to be vinyl siding on the left-hand side of the building 3/4 of the way.

Most of the money I think went to internal with amenities, which, when you think about it it's probably more important than seating capacity in the near term. It's unfortunate that Connecticut law makes building public buildings pricier than private buildings, but it is what it is.
Expand ...
idk CL, I was up for a baseball game when they were in the process of installing the last of the exterior tiles. The stuff looked pretty good to me but truly cant say what they were made of... Ill ask next time I'm there. Definitely bucks went for the players benefit but the lack of simple bench seating in those areas alone just galls.
 
Rufus said:
Because SMU is paying for the additions of Cal and Stanford by forgoing any media rights payouts for 7 years. The SMU boosters are paying to run the athletic department at SMU for the next 7 years.

If UConn would forgo any media rights payouts for 7 years and rely on the UConn boosters to fund the athletic department during that time, I'm sure the ACC would be interested.

These additions will cost the ACC money once all three are full members after the 7 year buy-in period. That's why adding these teams shows the ACC knows it will inevitably lose teams down the road.
Expand ...
I strongly hope the IRS does not consider any booster donations as tax deductible.
 
Duncan Idaho said:
We spend at the very low end of P5 rate and it's not on football. Geno makes as much as the entire football coaching staff. We don't spend high on G5 rate. SMU spends 22MM+ on football, that's 6MM more than us. UCF, USF spend millions higher. The deficit is largely accumulated by sports not football and basketball.
Expand ...
And Dan Hurley makes more than Geno.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
The annual operating expenses and the infrastructure required to field a niche sport that has low visibility even regionally, let alone nationally, and will operate in the red forever seemed irresponsible and a luxury item for a school that was in the AAC for other sports at the time. Even more so today as were still in the G5 abyss.
Expand ...
We support big teams. I don't know how a school like Oklahoma ST gets around the Title IX requirements. And we lost three sports.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
The annual operating expenses and the infrastructure required to field a niche sport that has low visibility even regionally, let alone nationally, and will operate in the red forever seemed irresponsible and a luxury item for a school that was in the AAC for other sports at the time. Even more so today as were still in the G5 abyss.
Expand ...
Got it. That same argument would support cutting every men's sport except for basketball and football and only maintaining sufficient women's sports to meet our Title XI obligation. We may get to the point where that is what we are facing, but we aren't there yet.

For what it's worth, UConn hockey draws pretty well, probably with attendance in excess of many men's basketball programs. Both it, and if I recall correctly, women's hockey were both ranked last year. Having a diverse and successful athletic department which sponsors a number of sports makes us more attractive as a Px addition. If we aspire to that, still, then maintaining a diversity of sports sponsored is probably in our best interest.
 
Duncan Idaho said:
idk CL, I was up for a baseball game when they were in the process of installing the last of the exterior tiles. The stuff looked pretty good to me but truly cant say what they were made of... Ill ask next time I'm there. Definitely bucks went for the players benefit but the lack of simple bench seating in those areas alone just galls.
Expand ...
Yeah I hear you. Those metal panels in the front quarter of the arena took forever to install. I have no idea how pricey they were or not. Fully agree that the facility is smaller than optimal for us. I think they are going with the "Gampel Arena" plan of intentionally building the facility under size to meet budgets with the expectation that demand will give them enough room to expand in a few years. That's an in efficient way to do business, but it seems to be modus operandi for us.
 
.-.
ConnHuskBask said:
The annual operating expenses and the infrastructure required to field a niche sport that has low visibility even regionally, let alone nationally, and will operate in the red forever seemed irresponsible and a luxury item for a school that was in the AAC for other sports at the time. Even more so today as were still in the G5 abyss.
Expand ...
What sports do you consider non-niche?
 
Mora4Prez said:
I

Im with you man. I can appreciate people on this board wanting to be optimistic but UConn athletics has been one of the biggest financial failure in all of college sports. I’m not talking about our performance on the field/court but just in terms of how much we’ve invested vs gotten in return. No matter what anyone on this board says, you cannot continue to support a nationally-relevant athletics program on $7M a year for the long term. Just doesn’t happen. Something has to give and I fear that we’re only years away from the football program shutting down.

People can call me a doomer or whatever but this has been the worst 3 month period possible for our athletics program. There’s literally not a single thing that could have gone worse for us.
Expand ...

I would argue that UConn has gotten so much more out of their investment than most schools.
 
Penfield said:
I would argue that UConn has gotten so much more out of their investment than most schools.
Expand ...
Many strong programs over the years. Many good programs for a variety of athletic preferences.
 
Last edited:
CL82 said:
Got it. That same argument would support cutting every men's sport except for basketball and football and only maintaining sufficient women's sports to meet our Title XI obligation. We may get to the point where that is what we are facing, but we aren't there yet.

For what it's worth, UConn hockey draws pretty well, probably with attendance in excess of many men's basketball programs. Both it, and if I recall correctly, women's hockey were both ranked last year. Having a diverse and successful athletic department which sponsors a number of sports makes us more attractive as a Px addition. If we aspire to that, still, then maintaining a diversity of sports sponsored is probably in our best interest.
Expand ...

To your first point, fine by me. The school should have been investing money into football at the expense of all non-revenue sports for years. Adding ice hockey to a higher division is just another mouth to feed with no discernable ROI.

You can't possibly believe that about a well rounded AD? We have one of the most well rounded ADs in America for decades. It's all about winning football, football brand, and football commitment. I mean do half the leagues even offer hockey, soccer, or field hockey?

The Viking said:
What sports do you consider non-niche?
Expand ...

Men's basketball, football, and while it's absolutely not for me, women's basketball.
 
.-.
NEforceUConn said:
To watch a scumbag ACC team?
Expand ...
It will depend on the story line. True, the vast majority of games would not warrant the trip, it would have to be somewhat compelling.

I'm more interested in the experience as a consumer.

Preferred game would be something like BC vs Syracuse on a Thursday night, both 0-7 looking for their first win. I'll buy a ticket for a legit movie and then slip in to the disaster fest.
 
noeynox said:
F-No. I would do nothing extra that puts a dime in the pockets of anyone associated with ESPN or thr ACC. Next idea.
Expand ...
Understandable.
 
damn it sounds like espn actually wants to save the acc as opposed to the PAC...sucks.
 
Football on an IMax screen ?

Maybe....But I don't see the theatre appeal...now, sometimes we watch at our local sports bar to schmooz with other fans.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,510
Messages
4,579,675
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom